Category Archives: Globalist

Even the NY Times is now rejecting Monsanto GMO science

Even the NY Times is now rejecting Monsanto GMO science

by Jon Rappoport

April 9, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

This isn’t a leak. It isn’t a timid flow. It’s a flood.

I’m talking about about the criticism of Monsanto’s so-called science of genetically-engineered food.

For the past 20 years, independent researchers have been attacking Monsanto science in various ways, and finally the NY Times has joined the crowd.

But it’s the way Mark Bittman, lead food columnist for the Times magazine, does it that really crashes the whole GMO delusion. Writing in his April 2 column, “Why Do G.M.O.’s Need Protection?”, Bittman leads with this:

“Genetic engineering in agriculture has disappointed many people who once had hopes for it.”

As in: the party’s over, turn out the lights.

Bittman explains: “…genetic engineering, or, more properly, transgenic engineering – in which a gene, usually from another species of plant, bacterium or animal, is inserted into a plant in the hope of positively changing its nature – has been disappointing.”

As if this weren’t enough, Bittman spells it out more specifically: “In the nearly 20 years of applied use of G.E. in agriculture there have been two notable ‘successes,’ along with a few less notable ones. These are crops resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (Monsanto develops both the seeds and the herbicide to which they’re resistant) and crops that contain their own insecticide. The first have already failed, as so-called superweeds have developed resistance to Roundup, and the second are showing signs of failing, as insects are able to develop resistance to the inserted Bt toxin — originally a bacterial toxin — faster than new crop variations can be generated.”

Bittman goes on to write that superweed resistance was a foregone conclusion; scientists understood, from the earliest days of GMOs, that spraying generations of these weeds with Roundup would give us exactly what we have today: failure of the technology to prevent what it was designed to prevent. The weeds wouldn’t die out. They would retool and thrive.

“The result is that the biggest crisis in monocrop agriculture – something like 90 percent of all soybeans and 70 percent of corn is grown using Roundup Ready seed – lies in glyphosate’s inability to any longer provide total or even predictable control, because around a dozen weed species have developed resistance to it.” Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup.

Just as the weeds developed resistance and immunity to the herbicide, insects that were supposed to be killed by the toxin engineered into Monsanto’s BT crops are also surviving.

Five years ago, it would have been unthinkable that the NY Times would print such a complete rejection of GMO plant technology. Now, it’s “well, everybody knows.”

The Times sees no point in holding back any longer.

The Matrix Revealed

Exit From the Matrix

Of course, if it were a newspaper with any real courage, it would launch a whole series of front-page pieces on this enormous failure, and the gigantic fraud that lies behind it. Then the Times might actually see its readership improve.

Momentum is something its editors understand well enough. You set your hounds loose on a story, you send them out with a mandate to expose failure, fraud, and crime down to their roots, and you know that, in the ensuing months, formerly reticent researchers and corporate employees and government officials will appear out of the woodwork confessing their insider knowledge.

The story will deepen. It will take on new branches. The revelations will indict the corporation (Monsanto), its government partners, and the scientists who falsified and hid data.

In this case, the FDA and the USDA will come in for major hits. They will backtrack and lie and mis-explain, for a while, and then, like buds in the spring, agency employees will emerge and admit the truth. These agencies were co-conspirators.

And once the story unravels far enough, the human health hazards and destruction wreaked by GMOs will take center stage. All the bland pronouncements about “nobody has gotten sick from GMOs” will evaporate in the wind.

It won’t simply be, “Well, we never tested health dangers adequately,” it’ll be, “We knew there was trouble from the get-go.”

Yes, the Times could make all this happen. But it won’t. There are two basic reasons. First, it considers Big Ag too big to fail. There is now so much acreage in America tied up in GMO crops that to reject the whole show would cause titanic eruptions on many levels.

And second, the Times is part of the very establishment that views the GMO industry as a way of bringing Globalism to fruition for the whole planet.

Centralizing the food supply in a few hands means the population of the world, in the near future, will eat or not eat according to the dictates of a few unelected men. Redistribution of basic resources to the people of Earth, from such a control point, is what Globalism is all about:

“Naturally, we love you all, but decisions must be made. You people over here will live well, you people over there will live not so well, and you people back there will live not at all.

“This is our best judgment. Don’t worry, be happy.”

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Experiencing an erection of collectivism lasting 4 hours? Stop watching MSNBC

Experiencing an erection of collectivism lasting 4 hours? Stop watching MSNBC.

By Jon Rappoport

April 6, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Bye-bye daddy, bye-bye mommy: MSNBC discovers who children really belong to. Finally. This burning question has been answered. What a relief.

Melissa Harris-Perry, a university professor and weekend host at MSNBC shares the wisdom:

“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we’ve always had a kind of private notion of children—‘your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.’ We haven’t had a very collective notion of ‘these are our children.’ So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.”

How many ways to take this hogwash apart?

A “kind of private notion of children.” Yes, how primitive. I mean, only bitter clingers would ascribe to this ancient concept, right? Such parents need re-education, they need to move into the modern age and embrace many mothers and fathers, including I suppose, Melissa Harris-Perry herself, although I’m sure her schedule is already overcrowded. But perhaps she’s good for a nod and a wink between violin practice and soccer games where nobody wins.

Then, precisely what community should own your kids? Your block, neighborhood, town, city, nation? People you know? People you don’t know and never will? A coalition? Perhaps…the government? Ah yes, that would would be it, wouldn’t it?

Because, as any good collectivist knows, the government is the ultimate “expression” of the people. The government creates, manages, and sustains the collective. The government decides, the people comply. The government knows best.

Therefore, all you whacko parents out there; stop thinking your children belong to you. You’re wrong.

Hillary Clinton knew this. That’s why she wrote It Takes a Village, another collectivist manifesto. Except her community happens to be nannies, the Secret Service, the State Department, the Senate, and the White House.

Since Melissa Harris-Perry is discussing public education, you can be sure the collective solution to your kids will involve more vaccines, more psychiatric appointments, more diagnoses of fictitious mental disorders, and more doling out of highly toxic and violence-inducing drugs.

More sex-ed at age five and six, since you parents don’t have a clue about sex and shouldn’t be allowed to approach it. More instruction about “sharing” as the basis of all knowledge.

Essentially, a collective is a group of people teaching others about the primacy of the group. It’s a madhouse from start to finish. It takes the principle of the inviolate individual and burns it to the ground.

It attacks the family precisely because the family resists the collective in any society where a few shreds of freedom remain. The family is a potentially dangerous source of decentralized power.

Harris-Perry is really advocating the sacrifice of your children to the “wider problem of all children.” Don’t raise your kids according to your own best principles. No. Give them over to “the wiser ones.” Let’s all do that.

Her solution also, of course, involves an enormous shift of responsibility. Parents can unload that burden. The “community” will shoulder it. I can’t wait.

This is the strategy of regression to the lowest common denominator. Since there are truly horrible parents out there who can’t handle family life, let’s all give up the primary job of raising children in order to save those parents who are abject failures.

Behind this is the program to destroy families and elevate the State. Make no mistake about it. It’s an op from the ground up, and always has been.

Just as state and county and city governments have been targets for the federal government, so is the family. The idea is to overwhelm all opposition to federal power. Under the mask, that is the naked face of the collective: everybody organized under central dominion.

Going still further, we enter the Globalist plan. Institute a world collective, in which every citizen is directly beholden to Earth’s princes and their bureaucrats, “for the good of all.”

It’s a stage-magic trick. Erase the individual and all he stands for. He was here—and then, poof, he’s gone. A mere trace of a memory remains.

The Matrix Revealed

Exit From the Matrix

If Melissa Harris-Perry wanted to talk about family, you’d think she would have stressed the greater responsibility of a mother and father. At home. She would have talked about alcoholic parents, inattention toward kids, the need to take home life very seriously. But instead, she went the other way.

She didn’t even offer a tip of the hat to churches, neighbors, clubs, cousins, uncles, grandparents—those people who do, in fact, form communities. Not grist for her mill. No, because she’s talking about money. Spending more money on public education. And for that, you need myth and fairy tale.

You need the disastrous construct of a public institution that will carry the job of bringing up children.

As if that were possible.

Perry rejects Private in favor of Government, which is her bread and butter. Public policy. Abstractions seeking a New World.

Much in the same way, Obama endlessly mouths, “We’re all in this together.”

The “this” turns to be the surrender of fierce freedom and independence.

I would like to see millions more parents deliver the correct response to Perry. Home schooling. That would solve it. That would deliver a profound message:

Babble on as long as you want to about pie-in-the-sky communities; try to melt the citizenry down into one giant glob of goo; fake your way into legends of better and more expensive schools replacing parents.

It’s for nothing. People know you’re a hyping con artist. People know that families and good education begin with real parents and can’t succeed without them.

The “new collective spirit” is very old. As old as the hills. College kids who know as much history as caterpillars out for a stroll after the rain are buying this lunacy, but when they leave the friendly confines of school, they’ll discover the only place they can find a job is with the government.

And that tells us something about who will swell the ranks of the collective. Those who have been rendered disabled by education. This is the public department Perry wants to improve.

We need more money to brainwash more children. That’s the underlying message.

To spread it, you only need one college with one cheap four-year class: the students sit in front of their laptops and phones and watch MSNBC 24/7.

To those students whose breath can still fog a mirror, you offer a piece of paper after four years. The paper tells them they’ve matriculated, and they can now be reborn as mosquito drones and launch out into the atmosphere of big government and find a communal nest.

O wonder of wonders. Parenting was unnecessary.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Monsanto and the FDA: 2 crime families working a trillion-dollar hustle

by Jon Rappoport

March 1, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Perhaps you remember the ill-fated Just-Label-It campaign. A number of activist groups petitioned the FDA for a federal regulation that would make labeling GMO food mandatory.

The petition amassed over a million signatures. But the FDA decided only 394 of these were legitimate, because all the others were electronically submitted in one document.

Infuriating? Of course. But that was nothing. Let’s get down to the core of the crime.

Imagine this. A killer is put on trial, and the jury, in a surprise verdict, finds him not guilty. Afterwards, reporters interview this killer. He says, “The jury freed me. It’s up to them. They decide. That’s what justice is all about.”

Then the press moves along to members of the jury, who say: Well, we had to take the defendant’s word. He said he was innocent, so that’s what we ruled.

That’s an exact description of the FDA and Monsanto partnership.

When you cut through the verbiage that surrounded the introduction of GMO food into America, you arrive at two key statements. One from Monsanto and one from the FDA, the agency responsible for overseeing, licensing, and certifying new food varieties as safe.

Quoted in the New York Times Magazine (October 25, 1998, “Playing God in the Garden”), Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, famously stated: “Monsanto shouldn’t have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

From the Federal Register, Volume 57, No.104, “Statement of [FDA] Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” here is what the FDA had to say on this matter: “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”

The direct and irreconcilable clash of these two statements is no accident. It’s not a sign of incompetence or sloppy work or a mistake or a miscommunication. It’s a clear signal that the fix was in.

Passing the buck back and forth was the chilling and arrogant strategy through which Pandora’s box was pried opened and GMO food was let into the US food supply.

In order for this titanic scam to work, the media had to cooperate. Reporters had to be a) idiots and b) sell-outs.

With few exceptions, reporters and their editors let the story rest there, as a “he said-he said” issue. No sane principled journalist would have cut bait at that point, but who said mainstream reporters are sane or principled?

Underneath the Monsanto-FDA buck-passing act, there was a conscious deal to give a free pass to GMO crops. This had nothing to do with science or health or “feeding the world.” It was about profits. It was also about establishing a new monopoly on food.

Not only would big agribusiness dominate the planet’s food supply, it would strengthen its stranglehold through patents on novel types of seeds which were technologically engineered.

It’s very much like saying, “A cob of corn is not a plant, it’s a machine, and we own the rights to every one of those yellow machines.”

How was Monsanto able to gather so much clout?

There was one reason and one reason only. Putting the world’s food supply into fewer hands was, and is, a major item on the Globalist agenda. If it weren’t, the FDA-Monsanto scam would have been exposed in a matter of weeks or months.

Major newspapers and television networks would have attacked the obvious con job like packs of wild dogs and torn it to pieces.

But once the scam had been given a free pass, the primary corporate-government tactic was to accomplish a fait accompli, a series of events that was irreversible.

In this case, it was about gene drift. From the beginning, it was well known that GMO plants release genes that blow in the wind and spread from plant to plant, crop to crop, and field to field. There is no stopping it.

Along with convincing enough farmers to lock themselves into GMO-seed contracts, Monsanto bought up food-seed companies in order to engineer the seeds…and the gene-drift factor was the ace in the hole.

Sell enough GMO seeds, plant enough GMO crops, and you flood the world’s food crops with Monsanto genes.

Back in the 1990s, the prince of darkness, Michael Taylor, who has moved through the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto several times, and is now the czar of food safety at the FDA—Taylor said, with great conviction, that the GMO revolution was unstoppable; within a decade or two, an overwhelming percentage of food grown on planet Earth would be GMO.

Taylor and others knew. They knew about gene drift, and they also knew that ownership of the world’s food, by a few companies, was a prime focus for Globalist kings who intended to feed the population through Central Planning and Distribution.

“We feed these people; we hold back food from those people; we send food there; we don’t send food here.”

Control food and water, and you hold the world in your hand.

Here is evidence that, even in earlier days, Monsanto knew about and pushed for the Globalist agenda. Quoted by J. Flint, in his 1998 “Agricultural Giants Moving Towards Genetic Monopolism,” Robert Fraley, head of Monsanto’s agri-division, stated: “What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of [Monsanto-purchased] seed companies. It’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain.”

And as for the power of the propaganda in that time period, I can think of no better statement than the one made on January 25th, 2001, by the outgoing US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Glickman said:

“What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of these issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches.”

Glickman reveals several things in these remarks: he was spineless; people at the Dept. of Agriculture were madly buying into the Monsanto cover story about feeding the world; and there had to be a significant degree of infiltration at his Agency.

The last point is key. This wasn’t left to chance. You don’t get a vocal majority of Dept. of Agriculture personnel spouting the Monsanto propaganda merely because the fairy tale about feeding the world sounds so good. No, there are people working on the inside to promote the “social cause” and make pariahs out of dissenters.

You need special background and training to pull that off. It isn’t an automatic walk in the park. This is professional psyop and intelligence work.

I’ve done some investigation of various groups on both the left and the right, and I’ve seen some pros in action. They’re good. They know how to leverage ideas and slogans and ideals. They know how to defame opponents and find just the right words to sink them. They know how to turn high-flying but vague words about “humanity” into moral imperatives.

This isn’t rinky-dink stuff. To tune up bureaucrats and scientists, you have to have a background in manipulation. You have to know what you’re doing. You have to be able to build and sustain support, without giving your game away.

Truth be told, governments are full of these pros, who will take any number of causes and turn them into what falsely sounds like good science, good government, good morality, all the while knowing that, on the far shore, sits the real prize: control.

These psyop specialists are hired to help make overarching and planet-wide agendas come true, as populations are brought under sophisticated and pathological elites who care, for example, about feeding the world as much as a collector cares about paralyzing and pinning butterflies on a panel in a glass case.

Here is David Rockefeller, writing in his 2003 Memoirs:

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

The Globalists play for keeps.

Owning the food of the world is part of their strike-force action plan, and Monsanto is the technocratic arm of that plan.

Meanwhile, the controlled press treats the whole sordid Monsanto story with its time-honored policy of “he said-he said.” This policy dictates that stories merely present both sides of a conflict without drawing conclusions.

It applies across the board—except when it doesn’t. For example, for reasons too complex to go into here, the Washington Post decided to suspend its policy in the Watergate case. Woodward and Bernstein were assigned to investigate what was going on behind White House denials and obfuscations.

The same thing could be done with Monsanto, and it would be far easier. The lies and crimes and cover-ups are everywhere. You could wear sunglasses and find them in the dark.

The NY Times and the Washington Post could sell millions more papers on the back of the Monsanto story alone. It would be a bonanza for them. But no. They don’t care. They’d rather keep declining and losing readers. They’d rather die.

Normally, a business doesn’t commit suicide, especially when it sees exactly how to resuscitate itself. But here we are dealing with an agenda which can’t be disturbed. Globalism, and its agri-techno partner, Monsanto, are creating a planetary future. Major media are part and parcel of that op. They are selling it.

Even as their bottom lines erode, these newspapers and television networks have to stay on their present course. By pretending they’re reporting the real news, they’re giving the impression that Monsanto and the FDA are home free.

Again, we aren’t talking about sloppy reporting or accidental omissions of fact or boggling incompetence or ignorance about science. We are talking about conscious intent to deceive.

Yes, now and then the controlled media will release a troubling piece about Monsanto. But placement and frequency are everything. How often do these stories run? Do they run as the lead or do we find them on page 7? Are reporters assigned to keep pounding on a basic story and reveal more and more crimes? Does the basic story gather steam over the course of weeks and months?

These are the decisions that make or break a story. In the case of Monsanto and the FDA, the decisions were made a long time ago.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Part of every new reporter’s training, if he has any ideals at all, is marching into his editor’s office with his hair on fire demanding to be given an assignment to expose a crime. The editor, knowing the true agenda of his newspaper or television network, tells the reporter:

“We’ve already covered that.”

“It’s old news.”

“People aren’t interested in it.”

“It’s too complicated.”

“The evidence you’re showing me is thin.”

“You’ll never get to the bottom of it.”

“The people involved won’t talk to you.”

And if none of those lies work, the editor might say, “If you keep pushing this, it would be bad for your career. You’ll lose access for other stories. You’ll be thought of as weird…”

This is how the game works at ground level. But make no mistake about it, the hidden agenda is about protecting an elite’s op from exposure.

If NBC, for example, gave its golden boy, Brian Williams, the green light, he would become an expert on Monsanto in three days. He’d become a tiger. He’d affect a whole set of morally outraged poses and send Monsanto down into Hell.

Don’t misunderstand. Brian hasn’t been waiting to move in for the kill. He’s a neutral entity. Wind him up and point to a target and he’ll go there.

But no one will point him at Monsanto or the FDA.

All the major reporters at news outlets and all the elite television anchors are really psyop specialists. It’s just that most of them don’t know it.

One outraged major reporter who woke up and got out of the business put it to me this way: When he was in the game, he looked at the news as a big public restroom. His one guiding principle was: Don’t piss on your shoes. Stand closer to the urinal. Pissing on your shoes was covering a story that was considered out of bounds. If you pissed on your shoes and walked into the boss’s office, he’d look at you and see the telltale sign. He’d say, “Hey, you pissed on your shoes. That’s disgusting. Get out of here. You’re fired.”

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The club of liberals, transhumanism, depopulation

The club of liberals, transhumanism, depopulation

by Jon Rappoport

January 25, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

By liberals, I simply mean those people who accept big government as a given, regardless of their political affiliation.

And yes, at certain key levels, they are a club. They come from major media, large corporations, banks, the military, well-funded foundations, investment houses, do-good non-profits, legal and medical societies, academic factories, think tanks, and of course the huge pool of government employees.

For them, big, bigger, and biggest government is a rock-bottom assumption that requires no thought. The sun comes up every morning, and there is big government.

This assumption supersedes anything written in the US Constitution explicitly limiting the power of central authority.

Where there is conflict between that document and the actions of government, the Constitution automatically takes a back seat. It is looked upon as a primitive, ancient, and worn-out set of ideas.

In fact, the Club is surprised and shocked that anyone would try to impede government based on fanciful notions about powers reserved for the individual states, or readings of the 2nd Amendment.

Long ago, the Club decided that every statement made in the Constitution was subject to revision or outright dismissal, based on the arrogant concept that changing times require new measures and new solutions.

In their eyes, they are working with reality, whereas Constitutionalists have a quirky and disturbing obsession that clings to absolute Principle. If Principle isn’t a sign of a mental disorder, it at least indicates an unhealthy nostalgia about a fairy tale of days gone by.

The Club blithely assumes it has won its battle.

The Club is focused on what big government, in concert with its corporate allies, can do to further expand. This is where a disjunction of attitude occurs.

For some Club members, the mission of government is to do good, to give to those in need, no matter how many are in need or how much that need grows.

For other Club members, at higher levels, the massive giveaway and fulfilling of need is just a pose, a tactic to gain more adherents who will trade a great deal of their freedom for a little security.

But there is no debate within the Club about this matter. No one wants to rock the boat. Those at higher levels view the do-gooders within their ranks as useful and amusing dupes.

The do-gooders, if they glimpse the faces and intentions of the higher-ups, shrug it off, assuming that somehow, in the long run, the vision of “a shared and just world” will triumph, because the universe wants to make it so.

The Club has one major enemy.

Abundance.

The idea that there is enough for everyone who wants to work for it, the idea that individuals can pursue their deepest dreams and desires, and win…that is anathema.

Why? Because if that perception operated widely in the society, it would rule out the grasping need for invasive central government.

Therefore, creating artificial scarcities is at the top of the Club’s to-do list. Of course, this agenda must be masked behind false cover. The scarcities must seem to be inevitable, or at least caused by forces beyond our control.

Scarcity of money, health, prosperity, freedom, property, sanity, natural resources…they must appear to be naturally occurring crises, for which the only answer is parental control over populations.

When Buckminster Fuller offered his brilliant analysis of abundance and how we could achieve it on planet Earth, he was missing only one piece: who would implement it? Who would revolutionize life for all?

The obvious answer is: the people in charge. But that doesn’t work, for the simple reason that those people are dedicated to producing false scarcities.

To reject abundance, the elite Club of Rome published its famous study, “The Limits to Growth,” in 1972. It essentially used computer modeling to predict failure for civilization, and ushered in a tsunami of propaganda aimed at floating the planet’s only hope for survival: a recognition of global interdependence and the distribution of the world’s resources from a point of Central Planning.

This concept, in turn, was translated to mean “addressing needs.”

The conclusion? Big government was the addresser, the single most important institution for saving us all.

Hand in hand, elite planners and propagandists invented a loop that guaranteed the primacy of a bill of needs over a bill of rights.

Individual freedom stood accused in the dock as the criminal. It had led to the wealthy few and the poor many. A world out of balance.

Members of the Club, sitting in their massive London drawing rooms and their Park Avenue apartments, applauded this “progression of awareness.”

To say they were laughing up their sleeves would be a vast understatement.

From FDR to Truman, from Eisenhower to Kennedy, from LBJ to Nixon, from Ford to Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Bush Jr., the Club watched their plans solidify. Regardless of what these presidents said or did, government expanded, and the official status of “fulfilling needs” was welded ever more securely to government’s mission.

Finally, in a considerable victory, to symbolically signify the emergence of the “lowest to the highest,” a man who represented former slaves on the American continent took up residence in the White House.

He, above previous presidents, would raise the sword to equalize all status in society. He would right past wrongs, square past debts, and fly the flag of humanity. Justice would be served.

No matter that the condition of “his own people” would worsen during his reign. No matter that the condition of all Americans would diminish. No matter that he was the agent of a operation designed to put the crown on government as the great provider.

From Buddha to Jesus to Karl Marx, the Club has borrowed sentiments of high hope and realization, in order to sell its program. The Club has cast its role as the messianic force. It has filled the pews of its church with followers, who have no clue as to the actual plan, but instead mouth the words and sing the songs and praise the gifts.

The marketing of these sentiments, their weave, fabric, tone, and flow are the substance of a trance induction.

And at the end of the line? America harmonized in its structure with other nations, and the subsuming of the USA under a regional and global arch of management.

As David Rockefeller, one of the designers of the plan, put it in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

There are millions of people who refuse to believe that a high humanitarian sentiment or ideal can be enrolled and deployed to defeat us. They automatically assume what stirs them is for the good.

They are crowded together in the middle of the trance. They clog the arteries of the body politic. They foment a disease of the public immune system attacking itself, and it is long past the time when they should wake up and cure their distorted perception.

But as far as the Club is concerned, they are useful. And useful they will stay, as long as they can be hypnotized into the future glory that lies just over the next hill.

And now we come to the technocrats.

The technocrats among Club leaders consider the overall mission in terms of a systems fix. There are flaws in the way humans have chosen to organize themselves, and these flaws need to be corrected.

With the important information entered into computers armed with algorithms, models can be obtained. These models will take into account vital resources, such as water, breathable air, earth minerals, fuel, food crops, transportation, housing, education, medical care, and so on. Planetary allocation quotas for all territories and regions can be arrived at.

Dispassionately, the human condition can be modified.

The technocrats consider this an interesting problem. It will take work, but it can be solved.

Certain factors, however, must be reduced or eliminated. Freedom, choice, personal decision-making have to be devalued in the new System, in order to avoid the introduction of random and unpredictable outcomes.

The very meaning of a technocratic system precludes freedom as an objective, because that quality of humans isn’t circumscribed and can’t be inserted as a pure passive object into calculations.

Technocrats value systems above all. They live to build self-referential closed structures. This fascination negates a whole range of emotions.

The technocrats aren’t admirers of emotion, which are unpredictable when it comes to the mathematics of a new planet.

Joy, for example. How would one enter joy into an equation? How could it be quantified?

Technocrats are, in a sense, a separate species. They are intensely cerebral. They view human beings as troublesome pieces of a puzzle. A system is erected on the basis of built-in controls. Humans tend not to fit.

This they find annoying. But there are ways to limit the trouble. Chemicals can be introduced into the brain. The chemicals will regulate behavior. This is another interesting problem awaiting a solution, a whole series of solutions. The drugs we now have are only a minor step in the right direction.

It’s all in the service of a better system, which is what technocrats must have. They would wither and die if they couldn’t have it. They would feel isolated and useless and rejected.

If you want to see a technocrat squirm and wriggle and scream, like a person being tortured, take away his access to systems.

The greatest acceleration of human organization took place in the century just past. The obsession for big, bigger, and biggest flowered as never before. Now, in this century, the push is for refinement. To the technocrat, that means much greater definition of roles for humans.

Specialization will take on new restrictions and regulations. Plugging people into a system is one thing; carefully ordering their limits and restraints is another.

Take the long view of this century. The overall aim is for a structure that will encompass the actions of every human on Earth; every person with a designated function rigorously placed in the correct slot.

This will be promoted as salvation. It will be floated as the genius of the species finally taking hold.

However, it’s clear that for such an enormous structure, machines will perform better as workers than people in most cases. As Bucky Fuller pointed out, automation is the wave of the future.

Then what is to be done with humans?

The obvious answer is massive depopulation.

The Matrix Revealed

This is on the drawing board. No doubt about it. It is being enacted in certain regions.

But there is a significant glitch. Among the most important Club members are heads and owners and financiers of mega-corporations.

Those corporations are already experiencing dead time in their operations. Their production lines are moving at half-mast, because the available consumer base is too small. Out of the world’s population, perhaps only a billion people have the means to participate in what is commonly understood as the consumer economy. Corporations can accommodate far greater numbers.

This is a genuine conflict. It has been brewing for some time.

If you have any knowledge about the men who run these companies, you know they will not go gently into the good night of major depopulation. That would reduce their consumer base to a much greater degree.

So far, all attempts to artificially create more consumers has failed. The overall picture hasn’t markedly changed, nor does it appear vast government giveaways will do the job in the future.

There is a thread of Globalist calculation that appears to be an answer to the problem. It’s based on the old Nazi presumption of a lost master race, a genetic strain certain Nazi leaders were dreaming and fantasizing about—and trying to recreate.

The new IG Farben (a vast chemical/pharmaceutical Nazi cartel) is a loose collection of corporations that now constitutes global leadership in pharmaceutical/genetic research. It certainly wants to invent “enhanced humans.” This is one of its prime goals. A laboratory-induced master race.

Here is my opinion on how the hideous project could proceed:

Over time, through food, drugs, and definitely vaccines, genetic factors would be inserted in human beings to render them infertile. The gradually ensuing decline in new births would be explained away by false cover stories. These stories, particularly when they come from “eminent researchers,” would be rather easy to sell.

As the global population decreases, a re-seeding and replacement operation would be launched.

This would certainly include genetically enhanced humans, but it would also consist of favored body profiles and races, because the overall program is most assuredly a racialist scheme.

In those regions where the population is made to fall, import the favored humans and genetically enhanced specimens.

This isn’t ultimately a depopulation program at all. In its later stages, it is quite the opposite. The objective is to reduce and then bring back a full ten or 20 billion people on the planet.

It’s all about replacement. It’s all about the assumption that “superior humans” will flourish. They will buy and consume the products of the mega-corporations. They will carry out, to a T, their assigned roles in the new civilization, along side the machines of the technocrats.

It’s a plan to: rewrite the future; and, when things are humming again, to forget the genocidal past entirely, in four or five generations.

This would solve the conflict within the Club, among the technocrats, the mega-corporations, and the Rockefeller-type Globalists.

And somewhere today, a young person, filled to the brim with vague ideals and hope, buying the promise that everyone’s needs will be met, that suffering and pain and injustice will be solved, has no clue that such pretty thoughts can be hijacked in the service of building a system to eradicate what it means to be alive.

This young person thinks freedom, liberty, and the intentions of the Constitution are frivolous obstructions to a better world.

Dispense with the Constitution. It isn’t part of the modern trend.

Instead, join the crowd. Shout with delight for the political salvation that is only a few more joined hands from realization.

Forget. Believe. Go along.

Reject as absurd the possibility that elite planners have a completely different version of the world in tow.

Yell for equality, whatever that may be shaped to mean.

Think about nothing. Just swim into the days with faith born from what our leaders are selling on the shore of the new shining city.

Believe. Trust.

Your job isn’t to imagine and invent your own reality. That is a meaningless proposition.

No, your job is to love the State because the State loves you.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Operation mind control: “save the planet”

Operation mind control: “save the planet”

by Jon Rappoport

October 2, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

The word “collectivism” sounds old-fashioned today. It’s supposed to.

It’s supposed to sound like a label from a bygone age when people were combing US government offices for hidden Soviet spies.

Collectivism is tied to other obsolete slogans like “Better dead than Red” and “America, love it or leave it.” In other words, we’re supposed to think collectivism was simply a trendy idea that ran out of steam. You know, a bunch of crazy paranoids were scrambling around warning everybody the sky was falling, but it wasn’t. They yelled COLLECTIVISM IS COMING, WATCH OUT, but nothing happened.

Well, the truth is, collectivism won its war. It absolutely won.

So it changed its name. It became a thousand names behind a thousand masks.

So now we’re the spies. We’re the spies for freedom, and they’re profiling us and trying to marginalize our influence.

Think back to the war of 1776. The Colonists came together, some of them. They banded together to fight the British. They were a group, and ultimately they won. But what did they do after that? They somehow managed to frame founding documents that established freedom of the individual, not the group, as the primary building block of the new Republic.

If we win this fight to preserve freedom in America, will we have the same understanding of what The Individual means? Or will we be so brainwashed that we’ll preach and teach freedom for The Group? If we take the latter path, we’ll fall right back into the trap of collectivism.

Consider the actions and words of the last few presidents. Have any of them made The Individual the basis of their rhetoric?

The answer, of course, is no. And Obama has been the worst of them in that regard. Obama is, you might say, the natural evolution of the eradication of The Individual. He’s focused all his attention on groups.

He bemoans the unemployment rate in “the public sector,” which is the drone-core of the collective. He emphatically demeans the individual entrepreneur (“you didn’t build that”), and claims that the infrastructure of the country, built by the public sector (?), is more important than The Individual.

Under Obama, the collective has become a messianic force. As if, in its vague and undefined way, it will save us all. We’ll become crusaders for that cause.

Yet, for every significant enterprise in human history, the individual vision comes first. It is the launching pad. The energy and inspiration of one person is the thing without which nothing happens.

Where is this taught in our schools? Where do we hear this in churches? What corporations explain this? How many parents make this clear to their children?

The idea has been lost. It is so lost that the majority of Americans don’t even understand what it means.

This should be a blood-curdling fact. But it isn’t. The major media certainly don’t bother with it. Psychologists don’t study it or comment on it. Who is funding studies on the power and vision of the free individual? What politician is running for office based on that idea? In what district anywhere in America would such a campaign score a victory?

No, The Individual is passe.

That’s where we are.

We’re in the dark.

Even when alternative journalists cover the dying out of freedom, they almost always discuss how “all of us” are being swamped by repressive forces. They don’t cut to the core:

Freedom is dying out for The Individual. That’s the stark essence of what is happening in America. But it’s easier to talk about “all of us,” because we have been brainwashed into believing that freedom or slavery is a collective issue.

An overwhelming number of Americans, in what is still the freest nation in the world, can no longer conceive of themselves as free and powerful individuals.

So I can tell you this: even if we win the fight to preserve the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, what we’ll do after that will still miss the mark, until we resurrect The Individual. And that job is Herculean. Most people don’t want to hear about it or think about it.

I, for one, think about it every day. It is a North Star that allows a person to navigate his life. It’s a standard and a measuring rod.

In uncountable ways, we are being drawn into the orbit of The Group. One group or another. We are told, directly or subtly, that everything we do is connected to others, and that connection is the defining impulse that shows us what we are. We are THAT and nothing else.

Why did George Orwell write 1984 about Winston Smith, one individual? Because he wanted to show the effect of the all-consuming State on its primary target: one person. Is that the way the book is read and taught now? Or are we supposed to believe that Winston Smith, the rebel, was merely a symbol and a metaphor for what was happening to everyone?

It doesn’t matter what is happening to everyone, when the irreducible essence of freedom, one person, is no longer present in consciousness.

When people think about Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, can they recall an individual hero, or has the State, in the book, taken over existence to such a degree that the one person is irrelevant?

Operation Mind Control, or collectivism, has triumphed so fully in our time that most people can’t imagine themselves as distinct and separate and free and powerful individuals. Nor do they want to. They feel guilt when they try. They feel they are betraying the Mass. They feel they are breaking the law. They feel they must retreat back to a position of safety. They feel that, if they step out in front of The Group, they are losing their innate “religion.”

Through devious means, the media twists individuals into “lone individuals,” a phrase we’re all too familiar with. These are the mysterious psychopaths who commit vicious crimes. The implication is: if they only had been part of some community, they might have learned community values and taken a different path. They might have realized they were part of the whole “human family.” They might have been saved.

Because, according to collectivism, to be saved IS to recognize that one is a cell inside an interdependent collection of cells. That is the premise. That’s the trendy thing to believe.

If you want cells inside cells, study almost any ancient society. There you will find variations of human ant colonies. There you will find individual sublimation to the group spelled out in blood.

What do you think Globalism and the New World Order are all about? They are the apotheosis of The Group, disguised as humanitarian service to The Good. This is a cold calculated propaganda operation. It works because people, when they become aware of suffering, want to reach out and end it. That impulse is preyed upon by the Globalist vultures, twisted, redirected, and harvested.

On a personal level, individuals become aware they can discover and invent visions of grand achievements and futures; then they hesitate; they balk, they feel alone; they don’t have the staying power to rebel against the Mass. They find a group into which they can retreat. They remain there. They hide from themselves there. They hope their self-induced amnesia will last. They invent reasons and stories and myths to explain their retreat. They seek confirmation they’ve made the right choice. They find other individuals like themselves, who’ve surrendered. They form bonds. They collectivize.

Now we are told the individual’s highest aspiration or vision must be service to the group. The whole matter of “the greatest life” is presumed to be settled. It’s no longer worth re-thinking. This, of course, is propaganda. In many ways, from many angles, it’s taught and implied in our schools. Children learn to parrot the appropriate phrases. They utter them proudly.

Three minutes after the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, there was an all-out psyop to convince humanity that the world was no longer separated in any way. No, now we had to strive together, to avoid extinction. And that was true, up to a point. But this striving—what would it be FOR? Toward what end?

How would the overriding slogan, “We’re all in this together,” actually be applied?

Look at how “one world striving together” has been used by Globalists in the last 65 years. We have, for example, the GATT Treaty, which gave birth to the World Trade Organization. And we have lesser treaties, like NAFTA and CAFTA, which were designed along the same lines.

These treaties have led to the enormous outsourcing of jobs and the flight of corporate factories. As Sir James Goldsmith pointed out, this is a completely criminal and insane policy. It means that the industrial countries have had to compete on impossible terms with countries where workers will produce goods for next to nothing.

It is economic suicide—planned economic suicide, aimed at bringing down the industrial nations. It’s succeeding. This is the real and brutal face of the slogan, “We’re all in this together on planet Earth.”

From the World Trade Organization has come the pernicious standard called Harmonization. It means that food policy and medical policy and health policy and trade policy—and eventually military policy and limited free-speech policy and judicial policy—are all arranged on an international basis. No more sovereign choices and no more sovereign nations. This is the real and brutal face of the collectivist slogan, “We’re all in this together on planet Earth.”

The Cold War itself, in which the United States and the Soviet Union faced off for decades, and its gigantic cost in human lives and money—all of it was a covert operation to divert drain resources away from truly productive societies.

As Anthony Sutton demonstrated so ably in his work on technology transfers from the US to the USSR, criminal covert ops were undertaken to keep the Soviets on the semblance of an equal footing with America. Why?

To sustain the Cold War, and therefore to grab tax dollars from hard-working citizens; to increase the gap between the rich and the poor; to destabilize nations and bring them closer to being military camps; to keep people on edge fearing an imminent nuclear holocaust; to establish the “need” for universal surveillance; to demonstrate in terms everyone could understand that, in order for the planet to survive, “we had to be in this all together.” As collectivists.

Then we had a softer version of the same platitude, the 1960s, the Age of Peace and Love. “We’re all in this together.” “Everything belongs to everybody.” And in the wake of that delirious decade, the propaganda of Interdependence. In Nature, and in society, and in the universe, everything is connected to everything. Collectivist Nature and collectivist economics and collectivist physics.

“It Takes a Village.” No one can stand alone. The individual is dead. The Group is All.

Then, the onslaught of messianic propaganda about food and agriculture. We have to feed everybody. What form has that taken? The one-word answer is Monsanto. Life will finally work for seven billion people because all crops will be genetically engineered. This will enable far greater crop yields (an outright lie). The small (individual and free) farmer will be phased out. Destroyed.

In truth, the nutritional content of food will be grossly lowered. New diseases spring up. This is the real and brutal face of the collectivist slogan, “We’re all in this together on planet Earth.”

In the medical arena, we have the institution of national health care plans in more nations, finally including the US. Everyone will be covered. We’re all in this together. Except that the true objective of the plan was to install mainstream allopathic medicine as the only permitted system. Meaning: more toxic drugs, destroying more lives. 225,000 annual deaths in the US alone from the medical system. We’re seeing ops designed to marginalize and phase out natural medicine. This is the real and brutal face of the collectivist slogan, “We’re all in this together on planet Earth.”

How about economics and finances? With conscious collectivist agents inside every government in the world, we got massive government spending—to the point where the debt was insupportable, where any economic calamity, engineered or accidental, could topple the whole works. As it has. This is collectivism in action, for the objective of creating one “better” global management system for Earth. The New World Order.

We could go on. But the point is clear. Since 1945 and the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan, the ideal and the promoted necessity of one world, of “we’re all together in this together,” has been used over and over again as a form of mind control, to permit the massive destruction of civilization.

The fatally flawed “science” of manmade global warming has emphasized yet another form of “we must all strive together to avoid a holocaust.” In this case, it’s carbon taxes, cap and trade, the dismantling of industrial economies, the increase of poverty, the reduction of available energy.

And at the heart of all of this mind control is the premise that the free and powerful individual, seeking his highest vision, seeking his greatest achievements, is the enemy, and only the collective can save and deliver us from evil.

Some people, reading this, will think I’m against any group action, that I don’t believe group action has ever been effective. They miss my point entirely. I’m not talking about REAL group action. I’m talking about ENGINEERED group action devised to destroy life, under the guise of saving it.

And most of all, I’m talking about the individual human being SURRENDERING to the idea that he is unimportant, that he only counts in reference to other people, that he has no real power, no real imagination, no great vision, no great status.

Status ultimately is reserved for the collective.

In my life, I’ve known hundreds of people, and I’ve seen thousands more, who’ve launched and built and created enterprises of one kind or another…and then they turned around and preached the primacy of the group. Instead of standing as an example of what one person can do, a TRUTHFUL example, they betrayed all that and became advocates for the collective.

It’s a sick joke. They came out of nowhere and used their power and energy and imagination to create something successful, and then they abandoned the premise of The Individual.

Some of these people have been co-opted, but many just failed to understand their own psychology. And many refused to allow other people to be individuals.

“Well, yes, I built that, but I know you can’t. So I’m here to help you, to put you into the mass, the group, the collective.”

Could they be more patronizing?

“Yes, I’m a big person, but you’re a little person. Don’t worry. I’ll show you the way. WE’RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.”

Really?

“Yes, I guess I came up from nothing and made my way and worked myself to the bone to succeed, and I had a great vision, and I pursued it and I used my power and I expanded that power…but I know you can’t do that, and I’m sorry. And I know you can’t rebel against your evil dictator and establish real freedom, because you can’t understand what freedom actually means. You’re limited in that way. And by “you,” I mean thousands of you, no, millions of you, no, billions of you. That’s why I’m saving Africa and Latin America, and parts of Asia on the weekends. Are you with me? Remember, we’re all in this together…”

And standing nearby, the real movers and shakers in the Globalist Club are laughing so hard they’re falling down. They’re cheering and laughing at this shell game until they can’t talk. They’re beside themselves. They LIVE for this kind of shit.

They live for the erasure of the individual. And they have lots of friends.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

www.nomorefakenews.com

Are the banksters wrecking the global economy really the Trilateral Commission?

Are the “banksters” wrecking the global economy really the Trilateral Commission?

by Jon Rappoport

September 5, 2012

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Yes, the infamous Trilateral Commission still exists.

Many people think the TC, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller, is a relic of an older time.

Think again.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.” Knowing that you have to break eggs to make an omelette, consider how the following TC members, in key Obama posts, can help engender further national chaos; erase our sovereign national borders; and install binding international agreements that will envelop our economy and money in a deeper global collective: a new world order:

Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;

James Jones, National Security Advisor;

Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;

Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

All Trilateralists.

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

In Europe, the financially embattled nations of Greece and Italy brought in Lucas Papademos and Mario Monti as prime ministers. Both men are Trilateral members, and Monti is the former European chairman of the Trilateral Commission.

In the US, since 1973, author Wood counts eight out of 10 US Trade Representative appointments, and six out of eight World Bank presidencies, as American Trilateral members.

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Several other noteworthy Trilateral members: George HW Bush; Bill Clinton; Dick Cheney; Al Gore. The first three men helped sink the US further into debt by fomenting wars abroad; and Gore’s cap and trade blueprint would destroy industrial economies, while vastly increasing the numbers of people in Third World countries who have no access to modern sources of energy.

Does all this offer a clue as to why the US economy has failed to recover from the Wall Street debacle of 2008, why the federal bailout was a handout to super-rich criminals, and why Obama took actions which prevented a recovery?

A closer look at Tim Geithner’s circle of economic advisers reveals the chilling Trilateral effect: Paul Volker; Alan Greenspan; E. Gerald Corrigan (director, Goldman Sachs); and Peter G Peterson (former CEO, Lehman Brothers, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations). These men are all Trilateral members.

How many foxes in the hen house do we need, before we realize their Trilateral agenda is controlling the direction of our economy?

The TC has no interest in building up the American economy. They want to torpedo it, as part of the end-game of creating a new international currency, ushering in a de facto Globalist management system for the whole planet.

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Even in what many people mistakenly think of as the TC’s heyday, the 1970s, there were few who realized its overarching power.

Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment from out of the past. It’s a through-the-looking-glass secret—in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others?After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

SOURCE: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.

Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.

The Matrix Revealed

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.

Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.

From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.

Source: Patrick Wood, “Trilateral Commission Endgame,” http://www.newswithviews.com/Wood/patrick133.htm

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Global society collapsing! Water shortages! Baloney!

by Jon Rappoport

August 30, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

A new study from the Stockholm International Water Institute claims the planet’s fresh water supply is buckling under the weight of population growth.  In 35 years, we’ll all be vegetarians or we’ll go under.  No more cow meat for you, Bubba.  Raising cows uses too much water.  Reach for the soy cakes.

These projections are being trumpeted by the same people who assure us the world is heating up so fast that, if we want to avoid frying, we’d better give Al Gore another Nobel Prize and worship at his feet on the tarmac, as he jets off, spewing toxic fuel behind him, to address another inconvenient conference.

The radical environmentalist stance is: cows are out as human food; find your protein elsewhere.  Better yet, eat no flesh at all.

Fully intending to sidestep an endless debate about which of ten thousand diets are best for the human species, I would merely point out that, when humans enter the zone of protein malnutrition, they function badly and they weaken.  Their thought processes blur.  This suits many governments and elites to a T.  Dictators want debilitated subjects.  (I would also suggest that most soy products, when consumed in extreme amounts, produce toxicity.)

But the answer to the planetary water problem is staring us in the face: desalination.  Turn sea water into fresh water for drinking and irrigation.

In fact, this holy grail of research isn’t a distant dream.  As of 2009, the International Desalination Association stated there were 14,000 desalination plants operating all over the globe.

There are more than a dozen technologies for water conversion, including multistage flash, multiple-effect distillation, vapor compression, reverse osmosis, solar desal, and seawater greenhouse.  In other words, people know how to convert sea water to drinking water.  And new methods are coming online every year.

The problem begins when multiple government agencies get into the act with task forces, reviews, press conferences, committee appointments, more press conferences, drawn-out requests for information, hearings, and further press conferences.

Every petty bureaucrat everywhere has to be allowed to get his/her two cents in, to justify position and salary.  Preferably the two cents are spent before cameras, after suitable time with a make-up artist.

This madness is only matched by corporate bunglers and liars, who seek to build desalination plants in typical corner-cutting fashion.

In Carlsbad, California, the Poseidon Corporation, the Coastal Commission, public utilities, and various environmental groups have been going at each other for a decade.  It’s hard to tell who is more incompetent.  The overriding agenda seems to be: “Listen to me.  I want to talk.”  And this is the just the run-up to deciding whether to build a desalination plant, in order to relieve the growing state water shortage.  Untold millions of words have been spoken and written, and a shovel has yet to break ground.

A reasonable person can isolate the key desalination issues in about an hour.  How much sea life will be killed in the intake pipes that bring ocean water to the factory?  How will the concentrated toxic brine, after processing, be disposed of?  How much energy is required to make fresh water and what will it cost, per cubic foot?  Who will buy the fresh water, and at what price?  How will the water be shipped to customers?

A real leader could command the warring groups to answer these questions truthfully in a timely fashion, while keeping their mouths shut and foregoing braying press conferences.

Of course there are people with agendas who don’t want to solve the problem.  For example, certain environmentalists long for the fresh water supply of the planet to run out, to prove we humans are horrible creatures who don’t deserve to share Mother Earth with zebras and goats and scorpions.

They would be willing to sacrifice a billion or two thirsty people to make their point.  If we can’t survive on roots and tubers and live naked in trees, we should be dead-ended as a species.

Then there are governments who, on “principle,” deny the right of any evil corporation to convert sea water.  Water should be free, which is to say, paid for by taxes.  So it isn’t free at all, but it appears to be a government service donated for humane objectives.  The government needs its PR face time and press conferences, too.

If desalination approaches the point of threatening to solve the planetary water problem, the United Nations will undoubtedly present a plan that insists on a share-and-care approach.  For every cubic foot of water converted in California and shipped to in-state customers, a cubic foot must be delivered to sub-Saharan Africa, at an outrageous price, which will be subsidized by the bankrupt California government.  Otherwise, shut down every desalination plant in the state.  A round of press conferences will explain this thinking.

Public utilities have their own agenda.  They would prefer water-conversion plants utilize electricity from already existing facilities.  They want in on the action.

And of course, to the degree that the federal government cares about desalination as a solution, it will want to create its own agency to oversee a national program, whose m.o. will be: no bureaucratic idiot or piece of red tape or budget dollar left behind.

On the international front, the IMF will have its say (and its press conferences).  Its strategy is: make loans to Third World countries, wait for the countries to default on their repayments, move in, initiate a bailout, on the condition that public utilities must be sold to multinational corporations, who in turn will jack up the price of electricity, gas, and water and drive populations deeper into poverty.  These corporate giants will consider investing in desalination only if their profit margins are through the roof.  Currently, desalination costs don’t yield such profits.

Finally, dyed-in-the-wool heavy-hitter Globalists, who back the most extreme environmental groups, don’t want desalination at all.  It runs counter to their agenda of sowing chaos on a grand scale and then coming in behind that to build their new world.  They don’t want the water to flow.  They prefer dry ashes, out of which their fascist management system will rise, to run planet Earth.

One small and simple solution to all these roadblocks might be enacted in a state like Texas.  An honest start-up company builds a small desalination plant, a pilot project, a showcase, to prove how well and quickly water conversion can go online and succeed.  From inception, ten thousand heavily armed citizens surround the plant and defend it against all incursions.

The tag-line?  Decentralize Power.

Now, those press conferences I would show up for.

We have the water.  We have the technology.  We have the solution.  Don’t believe the prophets of doom.  It turns out they want doom.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Ellis Medavoy on NATO Summit Psyop

by Jon Rappoport

May 10, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

It’s rare, these days, for me to get messages from retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy. He’s always been a difficult man. Now, he’s even tougher to coax out of his cave.

Nevertheless, because I’m persistent, I interview Ellis 28 times (290 pages) in my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED. The quality of his information on the nuts and bolts of The Matrix is priceless.

Today, I’m presenting a one-way conversation, in which Ellis begins by discussing the upcoming May 20-21 NATO Summit in Chicago. It’s the jumping-off point for one of his fantastic voyages. Then he and I go into Q&A format. Eventually, the conversation gets a bit contentious. I’m used to that with Ellis. He isn’t a drink that goes down easy, like chocolate milk. He’s like a few shots of gin.

ELLIS 1: Chicago. No-fly zone. Shoot down planes. Shut businesses. Station troops. Lock down apartment buildings. Tell business employees to dress like protestors to avoid assaults. Project evacuations.

Most observers looking at the Summit are missing the boat. There is NO consensus for a gigantic protest filled with violence in Chicago.

In the US, people have no particular opinion about NATO. It’s not G-8 or WTO. What NATO has actually been doing, covertly, for decades, in war zones, has occurred under the radar.

Reports out of Chicago are claiming the crowds of protestors are going to be much smaller than predicted.

Organizers are straining to get their people to march in the streets.

The G-8 conference was supposed to take place at the same time as the NATO Summit, which would have attracted big numbers of protestors to Chicago, but then Obama moved the G-8 to Camp David.

Michelle Obama will be hosting a few events for NATO spouses, and the president will show up in town. So what?

So that leaves three possibilities, all of which are psy-ops.

One, the crowds will be small, but the military/police/DHS and various other agencies will have a chance to do a live drill and see how their systems work and mesh…while scaring the citizenry of the city.

Two, related to One, this kind of gigantic military and law-enforcement presence (with accompanying media coverage) further conditions the population of America to martial-law conditions.

Or Three, behind the scenes, a violent op is being mounted by the very people who are pushing martial law. This incident will spark sufficient chaos to maintain the idea of “imminent and continuing threat to the Homeland” and justify crushing action by troops and cops. For example, these lunatic martial-law pushers might be putting together a threat against the president or the first lady. If so, and assuming the threat is contained, this will be a ploy to gain support for Obama’s re-election campaign. “Embattled heroic president vows to never surrender to terrorism…”

Unless protest organizers can manage to invent a march out of nothing, involving large numbers of people, most of whom will have virtually no idea what they’re doing in Chicago, you’re looking at the three scenarios above.

The NATO Summit jitters are a synthetic creation. As far as genuine public awareness of NATO is concerned, it provokes no images stronger than a march against Velveeta.

So this is all psy-op. It STARTED with announcements in the press about security measures that would be taken in the city. Get it? That’s where it STARTED. Those stories were planted. All of a sudden, before anyone cared about the Summit, we were told that security would be overwhelming. The security is really the only story.

They didn’t even fake a possible threat. They just said, “We’re going to blanket the city with security.”

This is also a covert announcement to potential protestors. The message is:

GET ORGANIZED. MARCH IN THE STREETS. DO SOMETHING BIG. WE WANT YOU TO DO SOMETHING BIG. GET YOUR BUTTS IN GEAR. WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? YOU’RE LAGGING BEHIND. IF WE’RE GOING TO LOCK DOWN CHICAGO, YOU HAVE TO PLAY YOUR ROLE. YOU CAN’T JUST BRING OUT THREE HUNDRED PEOPLE. THAT WOULD BE AN EMBARRASSMENT. IF WE’RE SHUTTING DOWN CHICAGO, THERE MUST BE A GOOD REASON FOR IT. YOU’RE THE REASON, IF YOU SHOW UP IN HUGE NUMBERS. SO BE THAT REASON. THIS IS A GOLD-PLATED INVITATION TO YOU FROM US. MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN. DON’T LET US DOWN.

It’s backwards, sure. Many ops are backwards.

The press will never cover a psy-op because the press are part of that psy-op. The tool in the master’s hand doesn’t turn around and bite the master. THE PRESS EXISTS MAINLY TO PROMOTE PSY-OPS.

ELLIS 2: “Defense of the nation” is a much larger psy-op designed to convince the masses that there IS a nation, when in fact it has been stolen out from under them, and all that is left of any significant size is the partnership between huge corporations, banks, and government. Government is rapidly being assimilated into a globalist scheme and pattern of management. These are cartels.

You have to understand the mental and emotional quality of people who are hired to deliver the news. They’re basically dolts. But they’re a particular kind of dolt. They’re bright in certain ways. They’re quick on their feet. BUT they can’t grasp the possibility that the information being presented to them, the information they pass on to the public, is twisted at the source. They just can’t imagine that. They know about lies, sure. But the real nature and scope of a psy-op evades them. They are information hounds, you might say, and they NEED a reputable source for that information. They’re addicted to information and for them there has to be a constant stream of it, or they would go crazy. They have to fill their minds with news and pass on that news. That’s their itch and they have scratch it. So they need a place to go to get the information and they have to trust it. They need a place where the news pours out to them all the time. They have to have that. Their primary source is government. They rely on it. They accept it. If not, they would be at a loss, psychologically. They would have to start vetting every piece of news and that would take too much time. There wouldn’t be enough news. It’s exactly the situation a drug addict finds himself in. He has to have a dealer he trusts to be there, to have a supply of the drug.

The quality of the information or news or drugs is of secondary importance to the addict. I’ve known many newsmen and women in my time, and they mostly start out with their addiction when they are young. They’re fixated on the flow. They’re tied with a chain and anchor to the flow of news. They eat it up. They remember it. They are married to it.

Therefore, the very idea that most of the news they’re reporting has an agenda is anathema to them. They reject that proposition violently. Put a newsman on a desert island and he would go crazy. He’d start broadcasting to the bushes or the sand.

So if a particular stream of news comes into him about heavy, heavy security in Chicago for the NATO Summit, that’s a very good thing in itself. That’s information. He never questions WHY this news has no foundation. He never asks why Chicago is being targeted. That would be like a drug addict asking why the flow of heroin is suddenly picking up on the street. Would never happen.

Just as the audience for news has to be able to replace one story with the next, the newsman has to be able to do the same thing. When you stop to consider this ability, it’s again like the drug addict. It isn’t yesterday’s fix that’s important, it’s what’s going to happen right now.

All newspeople are dedicated to The Story, but they have to believe the stories are factual. If they started to realize they’re reporting fiction, they’d come apart at the seams. Their lives and their minds are founded on the idea of facts. It doesn’t really matter that the facts are fictions—the newspeople believe they’re facts. This is a very strong belief. It’s religious.

When you step back and think about this, it’s strange. Reporters want to have a death-grip on facts. Information is their addiction; pretended facts are their religion. Where do these people come from? What breeds them to be the way they are? They’re dysfunctional in a deep sense. From an early age, they’re mesmerized by “knowing what’s going on.” They’re the “know-what’s-going-on” people. It’s absolutely vital to them.

They’re perfect, perfect dupes.

Q & A with Ellis Medavoy:

Q (Jon): So the job of the propagandist is to make fiction look and feel like fact.

A (Ellis): Propagandists know who they’re feeding, and they know what morsel will be snapped up by these newspeople. They know how to shape the morsel and color it and flavor it so that it becomes a drug.

Q: The memories of these newspeople…

A: Are data banks. Their memories are all data all the time. The memories form their reality. INTERRUPTION of reality is the primary sin. It can’t be tolerated.

Q: What do you mean by interruption?

A: A place in the mind where a corrosive question or doubt is inserted about the nature or character of a fact. For the regular human, this can be dealt with, at least to some degree. For the newsman, this is like a hammer blowing time to pieces. The flow is interrupted. It would be like one of those old stock brokers, when he followed the second-to-second transmission of stock prices by looking at a narrow piece of paper tape. He’d hold the tape in his hands and read it as it came through, yards and yards of it. But suppose the tape came out of the machine blank for a few minutes. This is why some people can’t meditate. They’re instinctively afraid they might come upon a silent moment where thought stops.

Q: So to ask your own question back to you, where DO these newspeople come from?

A: They, at an early age, see power as the capacity to know “what’s going on.” They plug into that kind of power.

Q: It’s strange.

A: It’s superficial. It’s all about surface flow of information. They stick to the surface. What they’re looking at, what they’re fascinated by is a kind of theater. They’re looking at theater. I’ve known that for a long time. It was part of my job to know it, because then I could present stories that would get through to reporters in a form that would have that theatrical feel.

Q: The players know their roles.

A: The reporters know, their editors know, their reliable sources know, and people like me, who feed those reliable sources, are like directors. It’s hard to describe this, but there is a certain pulse and pace and feel to the way you should supply stories to sources or reporters or editors. You know when to go fast and when to go slow. You know how to plug into their sense of theater. Their need for theater.

Q: So the addiction of these newspeople has a theatrical dimension to it.

A: Have you ever seen a junkie operate? A great deal of his action and talk is theater. He presents theater and he wants theater back. The newsman confuses theater with facts. It’s all rolled up into a big space. I’ve sold stories to reporters based purely on the theatricality of my presentation. See, let me tell you something. When I talk to a reporter, I know I’m walking into a theater where the play is ALREADY underway. It never stops for a reporter. So I hit the ground running. I enter the scene mid-stream. I don’t think, “Now, I’m starting to pitch my lines, now the scene is beginning.” No. I’m intuiting and seeing where he [the reporter] is right now, in the middle of one of his scenes, so to speak, and I plug directly into that place, that moment. Do you understand? This is the subtlety of the art.

Q: You understand his psychology.

A: Yes, and I understand his flow. I read the signals. Oh, this is Death of a Salesman or Streetcar Named Desire, or Hamlet, and they just shoved me out on the stage, and I have to know how to match the emotions of the moment, where the scene has already been going on for five minutes. It sounds a little odd, but that’s how you play the game if you want to win. It could be a very quiet moment in the scene, and then I need to talk in a whisper. It could be the peak of the scene, where the emotions are running high, and I have to drive right in and be there for it, with my feelings turned on high, too.

Q: But behind that, you were doing something quite different.

A: Of course. I had my marching orders and my agenda.

Q: You know, it’s almost like you’re talking about frequencies.

A: I am. Propaganda runs on carrier waves. What are you using to transmit messages? What wave? I knew my targets: reporters and editors and their reliable sources. So I had to understand and tune into the frequencies they would accept. If you watch the best television news anchors, you see they’re adopting several tight emotional frequencies, and they use them to transmit, with their voices and demeanor, the news to the public. They use a nearly perfect imitation of several things: concern, objectivity, dignity, intelligence, with a bit of a rosy glow of sincerity and humanity. That’s the recipe.

Q: Imitation, you say.

A: Yes. They’re a cartoon. They create a cartoon persona. A very well crafted one. And the audience is a cartoon, too.

Q: Why is the audience a cartoon?

A: Because, underneath it all, they know they’re being conned. At some level, they realize it’s a show. So they pretend, and they do it well. They pretend they’re very involved.

Q: You can see that?

A: See it? I lived by it for many years. I staked my reputation on all of this, on everything I’m talking about here. It wasn’t just theory. I went into the trenches with my understanding, and I made it succeed.

Q: You’re talking about using your skills on people who report the news, who tell the public what’s going on.

A: As I just said, it’s all a cartoon. On both sides. Broadcasters and audience. You may not like it that I take a hard line on the audience, but too bad. The audience is faking it just as much as the newscasters. You have to admit there are levels to the mind.

Q: Meaning?

A: On one level, the audience appears to accept what the mainstream news is telling them. But on another level, as I’m saying for the third time, the audience knows it’s a fake. And why don’t they admit it? Why don’t they say, ‘I’m sitting here at night buying what I know is fake. I’m watching the screen and the anchor is giving me the news and I know it’s cooked.’ Why don’t people do that? Because they refuse to look at their own little drama of stimulation, in which they are titillated by what the newspeople are giving them. They don’t want that professionally produced titillation to go away.

Q: You may have heard of something called the Internet. It’s changing things.

A: Sounds vaguely familiar. Yes. The ground is splitting beneath the audience’s feet. I’m not a praying man, but I do something close to that every day, as regards The New York Times and NBC. I ask for them to go bankrupt. The Times is on the road to perdition and insolvency. If they go, it will make an interesting sound.

Q: Is your blood pressure okay? You’re a retired senior citizen.

A: I think I can hold my own.

Q: If you need to take a break, we can do that.

A: (laughs) Everybody needs to take his medicine.

Q: I can think of two or three meanings for that sentence.

A: See, I’m a little sick of people saying that the great unwashed masses of very fine people are being fooled and duped by the big bad controllers. It’s a mutual dance. I knew that thirty years ago. Everybody has to own up to his part in the cartoon, in the theatrical presentation. I know the difference between real victims and fake victims.

Q: What is that difference?

A: The real victims, in certain countries, are being taken out by massive corporations with their assisting government troops and all sorts of other support. The fake victims are sitting in front of television sets eating sugar and tuning right into the frequencies of the presentation of the news. They’re frequency addicts, and I’m very serious about that. This is exactly what they’re hooked on. Why do you think all this research on the brain is being done? To home in on the best frequencies for the insertion of information. That’s what we’re discussing here. But good newspeople already understand the frequency game. Intuitively. They understand it better than the brain researchers. And the audience needs that human face and voice to transmit the addicting frequencies to them. It isn’t just the old flicker rate of the TV or the frames per second or the illuminated screen. It’s the person delivering the news. He’s the prime force. He’s addicted to the frequencies he’s using! He’s addicted, too, and he’s transmitting and sharing his addiction with the audience.

Q: And what’s the cure for this addiction?

A: The world is resonating every day with what humans want. Here is what they want: they want to ingratiate themselves with each other. Ingratiation. Acceptance. Those are the frequencies. That’s the theme of the play. Those are the resonating frequencies. That’s how information is built and fabricated to invoke belief and faith. That’s the carrier wave, the resonance.

Q: When did you realize this?

A: When I was nine. But that’s a whole other story. Realizing it pushed me into the work I did. It also rescued me from continuing to do that work. I got out. You know what getting out means? It means I don’t any longer accept what I was doing, AND I refuse to accept the conditions that made it possible to do that work. I didn’t just get out part way. I got out all the way. I don’t buy the basic theme of the play or the ingratiating resonance anymore. I offloaded the whole thing. You know what? Tomorrow, if I wanted to, I could start a new religion. And it wouldn’t really involve any of the factual deceptions I used to use in my work. I could start a non-denominational religion based, say, entirely on charity. That’s all. And it would look like a very good thing. But I WOULD be using my ability to put out my messages on frequencies and resonances that would attract people. See? That’s how I’d build my audience. And I won’t do that. I know how to do it very, very well, but I won’t do that. That’s what getting out all the way means.

Q: You know—

A: I know a few solid truths. You can get people to sleepwalk from “bad things” to “good things” and they’re still sleepwalking. And that’s the real problem. That’s one element of The Matrix.

Q: Scientists tend to believe in operant conditioning. They believe people think and act according to one type of operant conditioning or another, and there are no other choices.

A: That’s right. That’s the problem. Waking up from the frequency game altogether is the real goal.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Nazis, Nixon, Rockefeller, and Watergate

Nazis, Nixon, Rockefeller, and Watergate

by Jon Rappoport

April 12, 2012

To learn why Richard Nixon was really blown out of the White House, you could begin with the infamous Nazi chemical/pharmaceutical cartel, IG Farben. The cartel that pushed Hitler over the top into power in Germany.

One of its lasting legacies is the multinational corporation expanded out into titanic proportions. Farben didn’t just buy smaller companies, it forged favorable agreements with huge corporations all over the world: Standard Oil (Rockefeller); Rhone-Poulenc; Imperial Chemical Industries; Du Pont; Dow.

During World War 2, Josiah Du Bois, representing the US federal government, was sent on a fact-finding mission to Guatemala. His comment: “As far as I can tell the country is a wholly owned subsidiary of Farben.”

What Farben stood for was an attempt to remake the planet in terms of power.

Farben held important cards. It employed brilliant chemists who, in some ways, were far ahead of its competitors. Farben was all about synthetics. Rubber, oil, dyes, pharmaceuticals.

Farben saw itself as a modern version of the old alchemists. Transforming one substance into another. It came to believe that, with enough time, it would be able to make anything from anything. It envisioned labs in which basic chemical facts would be changed so that, in practice, elements and compounds would be virtually interchangeable.

This was in line with the Nazi obsession to discover the lost secrets of the mythical Aryan race and then reconstitute it with selective breeding, genetic engineering, and of course the mass murder of “lesser peoples.”

On one level, there was the idea of chemical transformations, and on another level, the transformation of the human species.

It was really all one piece. The Nazi ideology was the glue.

It was the picture of scientism—the philosophy that asserts science should absolutely rule all facets of life. Nazi Germany showed the world what that philosophy looks like in practice. Farben had prisoners shipped from Auschwitz to its nearby facility, where horrendous medical/pharmaceutical experiments were carried out on them.

At the end of World War 2, the Farben executives were put on trial and, despite the efforts of Telford Taylor, the chief US prosecutor, the sentences handed out were light.

There was a reason for this. A new world was coming into being, and mega-corporations and cartels were at the heart of it. They would be the engines driving the global economy and pillaging the natural resources of the planet. It was colonialism with a different face, the East India company running on technology and industry and a planetary reach beyond anything ever attempted.

So the Farben moguls, and those like them, were seen by many as designers of the new “peace.”

Consider the total volume of international trade of goods today—the largest 300 corporations in the world are responsible for an unbelievable percentage of it…as high as 25%.

So now you see the reason why these treaties like GATT and NAFTA and CAFTA have been launched. Mega-corporations want to roam free. They want to be able to inject money into any entity in the world and suddenly remove it at will. They certainly want to be able to ship goods from one nation to another without paying tariffs, which otherwise would cost them an extraordinary amount of money. For these corporations, nations don’t really exist anymore—they are inconvenient fictions. These corporations don’t want any restrictions on their plundering of the Global Village.

Farben envisioned and planned for this kind of licentious freedom. It saw itself as more than a German cartel. It was already international, and it was moving toward domination.

However, more powerful forces would overtake it—and I’m not just talking about American soldiers. In the sphere of international influence, there are the Plan A and Plan B people. The Plan A controllers (think Rockefeller dynasty, among others) opted for a “softer, gentler” approach, a more covert program, whereby, over a long period of time, the world population would be brought under a global management system, in which mega-corporations would play the central role. The Plan B people, Nazis and their allied interests, wanted crushing force and violence to achieve a somewhat similar goal in a much shorter period of time—with Germany as the leading prow of the movement.

It is in the arena of pharmaceutical domination that one of Farben’s goals has endured. Two of its original components, Bayer and Hoechst, have survived and prospered. And many other drug companies have copied the basic model.

For a number of years, I’ve researched and published on this subject. Death, maiming, destruction, poisoning—these are correct assessments of the overall effects of drug-based medicine. Judging solely by these effects, one could say that war by other means has continued after 1945. And the fronts of devastation have spread.

On the mega-corporate front, the plan for world control remains the Rockefeller template. “Free trade.” This plan was advanced, ceaselessly, for 40 years until, on January 1, 1995, the World Trade Organization was fully formed and took charge of the criminal rules of global commerce: the crowning moment.

However, back in the early 1970s, the whole operation had almost been derailed. One man, a crook, a president, a liar, an insecure parody of a head of state, Richard Nixon, went off script. He REALLY went off script.

In an effort to bolster US companies and protect them from foreign competition inside the United States, Nixon (on Aug 15, 1971) took American money off the gold standard, and he began erecting tariffs on a range of goods imported into the US.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRzr1QU6K1o&w=415&h=311]

If this Nixon economic plan spread to other countries, the entire global program to install “free trade” and mega-corporate emperors on their thrones for a thousand years could crash and burn.

Nixon was a Rockefeller man. He was owned by them. He’d been rescued from financial ruin by The Family, and now he was in the White House undermining their greatest dream. You can’t overstate the degree of the betrayal, from the Rockefeller point of view. You simply can’t.

Something had to be done. The president had to go. This was the real motivation behind Watergate. This was the real op. Yes, there were sub-motives and smaller contexts, as in any major op, but the prime mover was: get Free Trade back on track: get suitable revenge on the puppet in the White House who went off the script.

Any historian who overlooks this is an outright fool or a deceiver.

Whether the Watergate break-in was planned to serve the higher goal or was pounced upon, after the fact, as the grand opportunity, is beside the point. It was there, and it was used. It became the starting point for the Washington Post, its publisher, veteran editor, and two cub reporters to break Richard Nixon into pieces.

And if the Rockefeller people needed an inside man to report on the deteriorating mental state of the president as he heated up in the pressure cooker, they had Henry Kissinger, who was another Rockefeller operative.

The Washington Post was owned by Katharine Graham, who was herself a very close friend of the Rockefeller Family. Years later, she would be awarded a medal of honor by the University of Chicago, a an institution founded by John D. Rockefeller. On her death, a paid heartfelt obituary was inserted in the NY Times by the trustees, faculty, and staff of Rockefeller University, where she had served on the University Council.

And she and Nixon already hated each other by the early 1970s.

The managing editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, was an old hand at writing promotional material, having worked in Europe crafting releases for a CIA front group. A former Naval intelligence man, he liked one of his cub reporters, Bob Woodward, who had also worked for the Navy in intelligence.

When Woodward came to Bradlee with a story about a man in a parking garage who was passing secrets from the White House/FBI about Watergate, we are supposed to believe that Bradlee naturally responded by giving the green light to a major investigation. Woodward and Carl Bernstein, another cub, would undertake it—with nothing more than Bradlee’s reputation and the future survival of the Post and Katharine Graham’s empire on the line if the cubs got it wrong.

We are supposed to believe Bradlee gave the green light, without knowing who the man in the garage was, without knowing whether Woodward could be trusted, without even getting permission from Graham to move ahead.

Bradlee, a grizzled veteran of Washington, understanding exactly what Washington could do to people who told secrets out of school, just said to Woodward and Bernstein, “You’d better be damned sure you’re right, because otherwise we’re all in trouble.”

Two untested cub reporters set loose in a cage with tigers.

The odds of that happening were nil. Bradlee had to know a great deal from the beginning, and he had to have Katharine Graham’s signal to move. The series of breaking stories would be spoon-fed to the unsuspecting young reporters. They would be consumed by their ambition to advance their careers. Bradlee was confident because he had the essentials of the scandal in hand—all the way up to Nixon, the target—well in advance of his two reporters.

To have proceeded otherwise—Bradlee was simply not that kind of fool. Whatever Deep Throat, the man in the garage, was dishing out to Woodward didn’t really matter. Bradlee already had it in his pocket. Deep Throat was merely a contrivance to allow the story to expand and grow by steps, and to permit Woodward and Bernstein to believe they were peeling layers from an onion.

The man behind the curtain was David Rockefeller.

After the whole scandal had been exposed and Nixon had flown away, in disgrace, from the White House for the last time, Rockefeller addressed a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the European Community (October, 1975). He was there to allay their fears about Nixon’s betrayal of the new economic world order. There was really very little he needed to say. David had already created (1973) the free-trade Trilateral Commission, partly in response to Nixon’s wildcat policies. And a new puppet, Gerald Ford was in the White House, and Ford had appointed David’s brother, Nelson Rockefeller, as his vice president.

David told the European attendees, “Fortunately, there are no signs that these anti-[free] trade measures [of Nixon] are supported by the [Ford] Administration.”

And that was that. The global mega-corporate colossus was back on track.

The temporary rip in the Matrix had been repaired.

The Matrix Revealed

On a far lower level of power politics, everyone and his brother was consumed with the contrails of the scandal that had driven away Nixon and his colleagues. People were congratulating each other on the expunging of a corrupt conspiracy from public life.

The real players, of course, were still in place, more powerful than ever. David Rockefeller and his aides were preparing for an even greater coup. They had chosen an obscure man with zero name recognition to be the next president of the United States. Jimmy Carter. Carter would function to forward the goals of the Trilateral Commission in bold view of anyone who knew the score.

And every president since Carter, regardless of party affiliation, has supported and extended those Globalist-corporate goals. No questions asked. Obama, who fatuously remarked during his 2008 election campaign that NAFTA “needs to be revisited,” has taken his cues like any other puppet.

When, from this perspective, you examine the global takeover of land and resources by GMO agribusiness, the destruction of small family farms, the plundering of natural resources in the Third World, the use of UN “peacekeepers” and “humanitarian groups” and intelligence agencies to create a wedge, for corporations, into these areas, you see the hand of the Rockefeller plan.

When you see the destruction of currencies and the escalation of insupportable debt, the incursion of a bewildering number of UN-affiliated groups sinking their teeth into local communities all over the planet to “manage sustainable development,” you see the plan.

On the 40th anniversary of Watergate, you can see that the trashing of Nixon, who like every president since, was put in place to serve his masters, was an opportunity to notice the Plan Behind the Curtain.

Obama? Romney? Merely the latest willing front men. Third-rate hustlers.

To succeed against the plan, THE MATRIX, you need to know about it. A little history goes a long way.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Secret Societies Revisited

by Jon Rappoport

April 27, 2011

(To join our email list, click here.)

As many of my readers know, I wrote a book called The Secret Behind Secret Societies (included as a bonus in Exit From The Matrix and Power Outside The Matrix). This article adds a few pieces to the puzzle.

Bilderberg Group, CFR, Trilateral Commission—I called these and other such groups Architects of Reality. Among their actions, they try to build our perception of the world.

What is that perception? It’s an endless string of crises and half-hearted resolutions—that’s how we’re supposed to see things. We’re not supposed to see what actually works about the world.

Because what works is freedom and everything that flows from that.

In other words, secret societies are trying to bury the idea of freedom under an ongoing process of manufacturing desperate situations that can only be dealt with by large organizations—governments and so-called public interest groups.

“THE GROUP WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING.”

“THE INDIVIDUAL IS TOO WEAK.”

“FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL IS PASSE, BECAUSE ONLY LARGE GROUPS CAN INFLUENCE THE COURSE OF EVENTS.”

With an estimated 40-60 million people in the US taking tranquilizers every year, it appears this program is working. One chronic user frankly told me, “I can’t deal with reality anymore. Unless it’s a chemical reality.”

Over the past ten years, I’ve spoken with a number of teachers in the US. They tell me the areas variously known as Civics, Social Studies, and Government no longer place emphasis on the individual or individual freedom. Instead, it’s all about “group rights” and “victims.”

So again, the agenda of burying freedom is working.

In 1776, the Illuminati was announced as an operating society in Europe. The most important political tenet of this group was the abolition of private property—and that principle can be historically traced all the way down to the formation of the USSR. And beyond. These days, private property is under attack, albeit in a “softer” manner. It, too, is a concept no longer given emphasis in our schools—and when you de-link private property from the individual, you are attacking a significant aspect of what freedom translates into, in everyday life.

An American Studies professor at a prominent Northeastern university recently told me, off the record, because he was afraid he might lose his job if he went public, “Political and economic crises are being manufactured all the time. It’s basically psychological warfare, because one feels these endless crises can’t be solved. People just give up. And when they do, who do they turn to? Government. Government will handle things. That’s a sign that freedom is no longer a priority. It’s going into the dustbin of history.”

He was suggesting that, in wider and wider circles, freedom is no longer considered a solution to any serious problem. And since we seem to be awash in a sea of problems, freedom goes on the shelf.

As I’ve been writing for years, creative power of the individual is the prow of the ship of our society. Great innovators are the people who keep us moving into the future. Well, if the legs are being cut out from under freedom, we will be seeing fewer and fewer of these innovators. As has been pointed out, we will be “naturally selecting” away from those people and toward groups.

This is no accident. This is an agenda. To say the loss of freedom is simply a trend overlooks the keynote of coming global government and management—it is groups, not individuals, who have access to larger and larger structures that run our affairs.

One small example: 80 years ago, the rise of labor unions was achieved through legislation passed by the federal government. In other words, government would protect the right of employees to organize and bargain with management. But now we have public unions—government employees who bargain with “themselves.” It’s an absurdity. The real purpose is to expand the size of government by making its jobs more attractive and intractable.

In our schools, children are being taught to think of themselves in terms of a group identity. To what group do you belong? What are the problems of your group? What are your group’s grievances? How is your group being mistreated? What does your group need?

Is this development an accident? Did it happen by chance?

It’s on the agenda of legislated equality, which replaces the idea of equal opportunity to succeed. Legislated equality supposes that, instead of freedom, we will have group rights and group privileges.

This leads to the development of “positioning”–a hierarchy of groups who have assigned degrees of power—in hopes that the notion of the individual will disappear. The individual will be placed in a context, will be given what he “deserves,” will occupy a place in life that is suitable for the benefit of overall society.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati, stated: “It was the full conviction of this, and what could be done, if every man were placed in the office for which he was fitted by nature and a proper education, which first suggested to me the plan of Illumination.”

Earlier, in 1755, a Frenchman known only as Morelly (possibly a pseudonym), wrote a treatise called Code of Nature. In it, he spells out what “fitting into society” means for those who oppose individual freedom:

I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.

II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.

Today, we are moving in this direction. A pseudo “share-and-care” philosophy, that claims to be the ultimate in humane concern, wants to “distribute” individuals within the fabric of society, in order to achieve “a better world for all.”

These days, instead of brusquely elevating society beyond the scope of the individual, the agenda works by tapping into empathic and sympathetic emotions—using others’ suffering as the tool by which people can be turned to “help everyone.” But what slips under the radar of this program is the institutionalizing of aid out along broad political and economic platforms that change the nature of society in its official functions.

Society, in other words, in the person (or non-person) of government, takes in order to give. Takes more to give more. A great leveling, which in essence ranks the free individual at the bottom of the ladder.

Nothing appears to be lost in this effort, if people have already forgotten what the free individual means and is.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com